IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL th ON THE 4 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 2684 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. SHANKARSHAN PRASAD PANDEY (DEAD)

THROUGH LRS. SAVITRI W/O SHANKARSHAN SHRI PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 POST GANGEO TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY(DEAD) THROUGH LRS MEERA PANDEY W/O LATE SHRI ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 POST GANGEO TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DEEPAK PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 POST GANGEO TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. MAYANK PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 POST GANGEO TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. RAJSHREE PANDEY D/O LATE SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 POST GANGEO TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SHRIRAJ PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 POST GANGEO TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV COLLECTOR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. NARENDRA PRASAD PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI RAMANUGRAH PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PURWA 315 , TEHSIL SIRMOUR AT PR ESEN T TEHSIL MANGANWA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI MANU V. JOHN - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

(SHRI RAMSUPHAL CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This Miscellaneous petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated

24/11/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Link Court Mangawna, District Rewa whereby the learned Link Court has allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 herein.

Petitioners' case is that they have a dispute with the State Government.

They have filed a suit against the State Government. Respondent no. 2 has no locus in the matter and yet he has been allowed to be impleaded as a party. It is mentioned in the impugned order that respondent no. 2 being a resident of the village and with a view to protect the interest of the villagers and his own interest is entitled to be impleaded as a party.

Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi, learned counsel appears for respondent no.

2. He has filed a detailed reply but he is not in a position to answer a specific query of this court as to what is his locus in the suit property.

In the absence of any locus, anybody or everybody cannot be allowed to be impleaded as a party.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV The suit is admittedly not a representative suit.

Thus, when respondent no. 2 has no locus, an order allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. being contrary to the provisions of law cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The impugned order is set aside.

In above terms, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV